An item in The Jewish Week (newspaper) on February 12th, reminded me that you can't always listen to the "experts." It was an article on the fashion designer, Donna Karan.
As a student at the Fashion Institute of Technology (FIT), Ms. Karan was told she'd never make it as a designer. She had failed her course on draping.
But Ms Draper didn't accept the judgement lying down. She switched to Parsons School for design. True, they did make her take a summer school course. Also, they taught her how to drape. She graduated.
Ms. Karan had been, it must be admitted, stung by being failed at FIT. It made her that much more determined to succeed in the shmatta business. She did have a booster; namely, her stepfather, who was a custom tailor on Long Island. But, whatever, she made it.
Her ambitions did not move her along a path that was arrow straight. She had briefly thought that perhaps she might be a singer like her idol, Barbra Streisand. But, she realized that this was something truly beyond her abilities, not to mention her vocal chords. It was like a really good high school basketball player realizing that at 5'8" he was never going to make it in the NBA.
But, none of this hindered her desire to be a fashion designer.
There's a lesson here kiddies. You want something go after it. But, do realize that if you want to be a great actor or actress, it helps to have a realative in the business. Or, that to be a professional basketball player, it helps to be tall.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Friday, February 19, 2010
Misappropriation of Culture -- Part II
I ended my last blog on this subject without coming to any sort of resolution. I have now resolved the matter to my satisfaction. Resolution: You shouldn't be appropriating a culture you're oppressing.
Consider minstrels and Amos and Andy. Both of these kinds of entertainment can be innocent and amusing. However, they come from an era when African Americans were truly oppressed.
They came from an era when blacks were denied a stage before white audiences; they were denied work in TV. In other words, it brought laughter to white audiences based on the culture of blacks, but failed to focus on the true conditions faced by blacks. It's that which made them inappropriate.
It's as if Muslims were to put on a TV show in Egypt called "The Goldbergs. " (Thank goodness they haven't had to imagination to pull that one off.)
That, however, as far as I can see, is not the same as using costumes derived from early peoples.
Consider minstrels and Amos and Andy. Both of these kinds of entertainment can be innocent and amusing. However, they come from an era when African Americans were truly oppressed.
They came from an era when blacks were denied a stage before white audiences; they were denied work in TV. In other words, it brought laughter to white audiences based on the culture of blacks, but failed to focus on the true conditions faced by blacks. It's that which made them inappropriate.
It's as if Muslims were to put on a TV show in Egypt called "The Goldbergs. " (Thank goodness they haven't had to imagination to pull that one off.)
That, however, as far as I can see, is not the same as using costumes derived from early peoples.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Misappropriation of Culture
There was an item in the NY Times about a Russian ice skating team that had costumes made for them that reflected aboriginal culture. Australian aborignal spokespersons complained.
I say "reflected" because, the costumes were never intended to reflect authenticity. The lady's outfit was of a white, dangly material, and the gentleman's loincloth and fur boots (with skates attached) were designed for proficiency on the ice; something never required of an Australian aboriginal. Be that as it may, Australian aboriginals still objected. Of course, an Inuit costume might have been more appropriate. (Notice that I didn't use the word, "Eskimo.") I believe Inuit people also fit under the definition of aboriginal. And, of course, they know a great deal more about ice. But, then their native costumes don't flash as much flesh.
The reality is, I believe, that few people other than Australian non-aboriginals have much exposure to aboriginal culture. Were it not for that, loin cloths might be in greater demand. But, then what do I know? "European bathing" has long struck me as aboriginal. And, even men's bathing suits are sometimes reduced to little more than G-strings.
But, of course, Africans were upset when some American entered their jungles and recorded "When the Lion Sleeps." It's all very complex and requires more thought than I can devote to it at this sitting.
I say "reflected" because, the costumes were never intended to reflect authenticity. The lady's outfit was of a white, dangly material, and the gentleman's loincloth and fur boots (with skates attached) were designed for proficiency on the ice; something never required of an Australian aboriginal. Be that as it may, Australian aboriginals still objected. Of course, an Inuit costume might have been more appropriate. (Notice that I didn't use the word, "Eskimo.") I believe Inuit people also fit under the definition of aboriginal. And, of course, they know a great deal more about ice. But, then their native costumes don't flash as much flesh.
The reality is, I believe, that few people other than Australian non-aboriginals have much exposure to aboriginal culture. Were it not for that, loin cloths might be in greater demand. But, then what do I know? "European bathing" has long struck me as aboriginal. And, even men's bathing suits are sometimes reduced to little more than G-strings.
But, of course, Africans were upset when some American entered their jungles and recorded "When the Lion Sleeps." It's all very complex and requires more thought than I can devote to it at this sitting.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
A Word More On "Greed"
As I began to say before my finger slipped:
I was speaking to a reader of this blog, who asserted that I had said that "wanting more was a sign of greed." What I had actually wanted to say was that there was some ambiguity regarding the word, "greed." I should have made it clear that "wanting more" was, for me, not a sign of greed. I would describe it as a sign of "ambition."
The phrase "greed is good" takes a poke at the ambiguity surrounding the word "greed."
"Well, don't greedy people cheat?" I was then asked.
They may well cheat, but that is the sign of a cheater. It is not necessarily the mark of an overly ambitious person. (I'm not sure I know what it means to be "overly" ambitious, other than perhaps that the person being described as overly ambitious is more ambitious than I.)
I previously offered the suggestion that "greed" had to do with ethics (cheating a worker, or selling contaminated food); behaviour so egregious that in many cases laws have been enacted prohibiting such behaviour.
There was once a movie about ruthless stock brokers who amongst themselves used the phrase "let's go and paint lipstick on the pig." The meaning of that phrase was to call potenial customers and point them to a stock that had serious financial flaws but fail to describe those flaws, Instead, they would tell the person they were calling what a great investment this particular security was. In the meantime, they would be selling the security short. This is something that might be described as greed. I would describe is as the gross dishonesty of con artists.
Dishonesty is bad for capitalism. If one deals with "equals" there is nothing terribly wrong with "gilding the lily," or perhaps "drawing lipstick on a pig," But that's because you're dealing with an equal. Even though you describe the product in the finest possible light, your listener has the capability of seeing through any false claims.
That, of course, raises the question of when is one "gilding the lily," and when is one offering a blatant falsehood. Professionals guard against blatant falsehoods by (1) having all terms of the transaction, especially important claims, written into a contract, and (2) restricting themselves to doing business only with people whose reputation for honesty they've had a chance to ascertain.
For nonprofessionals, the best advice is to avoid doing business with anyone calling you "cold."
If you don't know the people well, don't do business with them. If you fall for a con artists line, it doesn't mean you're greedy. It means, you have failed to properly assess the risks of dealing with someone you don't know.
In the course of our conversation, we came upon another word, "covet." Clearly, you shouldn't covet; it's one of the Ten Commandments. But, what does it mean to covet? And, what does it mean to covet your neighbor's wife? You may think your neighbor's wife is a really hot number. Is that coveting? And, if so, why?
It would seem to me that you could covet hot babes all day long provided you took no inappropriate actions and said nothing that would strike anyone as inappropriate. I guess here we get into a cultural thing. Among the very religious (Jews and Muslims) women should dress according to certain codes of modesty. Among the Orthodox Jews it means being covered beyond your elbows and wearing a dress, or skirt. that goes down beyond your knees. The Muslims cover their women from head to toe. I guess they see coveting a bit differently than I.
To conclude: Be ambitious -- even very, very ambitious, but don't be greedy.
I was speaking to a reader of this blog, who asserted that I had said that "wanting more was a sign of greed." What I had actually wanted to say was that there was some ambiguity regarding the word, "greed." I should have made it clear that "wanting more" was, for me, not a sign of greed. I would describe it as a sign of "ambition."
The phrase "greed is good" takes a poke at the ambiguity surrounding the word "greed."
"Well, don't greedy people cheat?" I was then asked.
They may well cheat, but that is the sign of a cheater. It is not necessarily the mark of an overly ambitious person. (I'm not sure I know what it means to be "overly" ambitious, other than perhaps that the person being described as overly ambitious is more ambitious than I.)
I previously offered the suggestion that "greed" had to do with ethics (cheating a worker, or selling contaminated food); behaviour so egregious that in many cases laws have been enacted prohibiting such behaviour.
There was once a movie about ruthless stock brokers who amongst themselves used the phrase "let's go and paint lipstick on the pig." The meaning of that phrase was to call potenial customers and point them to a stock that had serious financial flaws but fail to describe those flaws, Instead, they would tell the person they were calling what a great investment this particular security was. In the meantime, they would be selling the security short. This is something that might be described as greed. I would describe is as the gross dishonesty of con artists.
Dishonesty is bad for capitalism. If one deals with "equals" there is nothing terribly wrong with "gilding the lily," or perhaps "drawing lipstick on a pig," But that's because you're dealing with an equal. Even though you describe the product in the finest possible light, your listener has the capability of seeing through any false claims.
That, of course, raises the question of when is one "gilding the lily," and when is one offering a blatant falsehood. Professionals guard against blatant falsehoods by (1) having all terms of the transaction, especially important claims, written into a contract, and (2) restricting themselves to doing business only with people whose reputation for honesty they've had a chance to ascertain.
For nonprofessionals, the best advice is to avoid doing business with anyone calling you "cold."
If you don't know the people well, don't do business with them. If you fall for a con artists line, it doesn't mean you're greedy. It means, you have failed to properly assess the risks of dealing with someone you don't know.
In the course of our conversation, we came upon another word, "covet." Clearly, you shouldn't covet; it's one of the Ten Commandments. But, what does it mean to covet? And, what does it mean to covet your neighbor's wife? You may think your neighbor's wife is a really hot number. Is that coveting? And, if so, why?
It would seem to me that you could covet hot babes all day long provided you took no inappropriate actions and said nothing that would strike anyone as inappropriate. I guess here we get into a cultural thing. Among the very religious (Jews and Muslims) women should dress according to certain codes of modesty. Among the Orthodox Jews it means being covered beyond your elbows and wearing a dress, or skirt. that goes down beyond your knees. The Muslims cover their women from head to toe. I guess they see coveting a bit differently than I.
To conclude: Be ambitious -- even very, very ambitious, but don't be greedy.
Monday, February 1, 2010
The Problem With Capitalism
Capitalism has several problems. First, not many people appreciate why it's a good thing. Tell them that it's the best way to allocate a nation's resources and their eyes glaze over. You've got to explain that only by having resources flow to the most productive engines of industry, do you achieve improvements in people's standards of living. "Standard of living," yes, that's a concept most can relate to.
But capitalism has some corollaries that just don't sound good. Example: "Greed is good."
How can that be anything but a loser? Greed, greedy, aren't they all terrible things? Well, really, no. What is greed? Is it wanting more than what you have? That's greedy? Why?
Well, suppose you've already got a lot, is it okay to want more? If not, why not?
You might hear, "He invested heavily and lost it all. That's what happens when you're greedy." Well, no. That's what happens if you take on more risk than is appropriate. Or, that's what happens when you didn't anticipate risk and failed to diversify. Or, that's what happens when you buy a stock that had already appreciated and you didn't think it would ever drop. But wait a minute; that's the same as failing to anticipate risk. In any event, none of the scenarios just described defines greed.
Greed suggests a lack of ethical principals or a lack of generosity. And, those things are not good. If you have a lot of money you should give some to charity or "good causes." But, it has no place in a discussion of economics. People wanting more and better stuff is what promotes industry and ultimately raises everyone's standard of living.
There's another economic principle that can upset people not accustomed to thinking in economic terms; it's "constructive destruction." Sounds like an oxymoron. There's destructive destruction and then there's constructive destruction. When your house burns down that's destructive destruction. However, when you stop using a pickaxe and acquire a backhoe, or when you trade in your horse and buggy for a gasoline powered car you have examples of constructive destruction. Turning to backhoes eliminates a lot of jobs that call for people swinging pick axes. And, when you get rid of your horse and buggy, you've ended the careers of lots of fine horses and harness manufacturers.
Constructive destruction calls for adjustment. People swinging pick axes have got to learn how to operate back hoes. People manufacturing buggies have got to learn how to assemble cars.
Generally, the new work is far more productive than the old. But, you do need social programs because adjustment could well prove difficult; especially for the older worker.
Capitalism is tough, but in the end it helps people a lot more than leftist dreams of redistributing wealth through taxation or mandating laws to protect inefficient jobs.
There is a lot more to understanding economics. This is just a starter.
But capitalism has some corollaries that just don't sound good. Example: "Greed is good."
How can that be anything but a loser? Greed, greedy, aren't they all terrible things? Well, really, no. What is greed? Is it wanting more than what you have? That's greedy? Why?
Well, suppose you've already got a lot, is it okay to want more? If not, why not?
You might hear, "He invested heavily and lost it all. That's what happens when you're greedy." Well, no. That's what happens if you take on more risk than is appropriate. Or, that's what happens when you didn't anticipate risk and failed to diversify. Or, that's what happens when you buy a stock that had already appreciated and you didn't think it would ever drop. But wait a minute; that's the same as failing to anticipate risk. In any event, none of the scenarios just described defines greed.
Greed suggests a lack of ethical principals or a lack of generosity. And, those things are not good. If you have a lot of money you should give some to charity or "good causes." But, it has no place in a discussion of economics. People wanting more and better stuff is what promotes industry and ultimately raises everyone's standard of living.
There's another economic principle that can upset people not accustomed to thinking in economic terms; it's "constructive destruction." Sounds like an oxymoron. There's destructive destruction and then there's constructive destruction. When your house burns down that's destructive destruction. However, when you stop using a pickaxe and acquire a backhoe, or when you trade in your horse and buggy for a gasoline powered car you have examples of constructive destruction. Turning to backhoes eliminates a lot of jobs that call for people swinging pick axes. And, when you get rid of your horse and buggy, you've ended the careers of lots of fine horses and harness manufacturers.
Constructive destruction calls for adjustment. People swinging pick axes have got to learn how to operate back hoes. People manufacturing buggies have got to learn how to assemble cars.
Generally, the new work is far more productive than the old. But, you do need social programs because adjustment could well prove difficult; especially for the older worker.
Capitalism is tough, but in the end it helps people a lot more than leftist dreams of redistributing wealth through taxation or mandating laws to protect inefficient jobs.
There is a lot more to understanding economics. This is just a starter.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)